Smt. Anita Devi & Anr. v. State of Haryana & Ors.
Case at a glance
Provisions considered
Judgment
CORAM:HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE JASBIR SINGH HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH Present: Mr. G.S.Sullar, Advocate, for the petitioners. Ms. Palika Monga, DAG, Haryana. Mr. Arun Walia, Advocate, for HUDA. *** Jasbir Singh, J. (Oral) This writ petition has been filed to lay challenge to a notification issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short 'the Act') on 24.12.2007 proposing to acquire land measuring 160 Acres including land of the petitioners measuring 400 Sq. Yards. Further challenge is to a notification issued under Section 6 of the Act on
23.12.2008. Award passed on 23.06.2010 is also under challenge. CWP No. 11131 of 2010 2 It is grievance of the petitioners that their running factory has been ordered to be acquired whereas buildings of many other land owners were kept out of acquisition. Upon notice, reply has been filed, wherein it has been stated that despite opportunity given, the petitioners have failed to file objections under Section 5-A of the Act. Para No. 3 of preliminary submissions of the reply reads thus:- “ That the petitioners were given an opportunity to file objections u/s-5A of the Land Acquisition Act, but the petitioners did not avail the opportunity given to them. They did not file the objections. The Govt. after considering the report of acquisition collector, decided to acquire the land of the petitioner falling in khasra No. 56//19 (6k-0m). It is also submitted here that in the above said notification land measuring 44.23 acres was released because of the constructed area u/s-5A of the Land Acquisition Act and it is also relevant to mention here that petitioner's constructed area is falling in khasra No.
56//18,19, in which the whole khasra No. 56//18 has already been released and land measuring 2 kanal 0 marla was released in khasra no. 56//19 u/s-5A of the Land Acquisition Act. It is also submitted here that according to the fresh official survey report and assessment report of the award, there is a factory falling in Rec/Killa no. 56//18, 19.” It is an admitted fact that the petitioners have not filed any objections under Section 5-A of the Act. In view of ratio of judgments CWP No. 11131 of 2010 3 passed by the Supreme Court in the cases of Municipal Corporation of Greater Bombay vs. Industrial Development and Investment Company (P) Limited, (1996) 11 SCC 501; Municipal Council, Ahmednagar vs. Shah Hyder Beig, (2000) 2 SCC 48; C.Padma vs. Deputy Secretary to the Government of Tamil Nadu, (1997) 2 SCC 627; Star Wire (India) Ltd. vs. State of Haryana, (1996) 11 SCC 698, M/s Swaika Properties Pvt.
Ltd. vs. State of Rajasthan, JT 2008 (2) SC 280 and Swaran Lata etc. vs. State of Haryana and others, AIR 2010 Supreme Court 1664, this writ petition is not maintainable. Further more, the petitioners continued to wait the ultimate to happen and filed this writ petition only in the last week of June, 2010. By that time, Award regarding the land under acquisition had already been passed on 23.06.2010. Be that as it may, in the written statement, it is specifically stated that the petitioners' constructed building falling in Khasra No. 56//18, 19 stood released from acquisition. If that is so, no interference can be made by this Court in this writ petition. Dismissed. ( JASBIR SINGH ) JUDGE ( AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH ) JUDGE November 11, 2010
Questions this judgment answers
Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?
Land Acquisition Act, 1894 — s. 4; Land Acquisition Act.
Which court decided this case, and when?
Punjab & Haryana High Court, on 11 Nov 2010. The bench was JASBIR SINGH, AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH.
Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case
No known negative treatment found in the Courts & Cases corpus.
This is a result about the indexed corpus, not a finding that the judgment remains good law. Coverage may be incomplete.